Expanded Public Works Programme Phase 3 Roll-Out: Public Works progress report

Meeting report

Department of Public Works (DPW): Progress report for the roll-out of EPWP Phase 3
Mr Stanley Henderson, Deputy Director General for EPWP, introduced, Ms Carmen-Joy Abrahams: Chief Director: EPWP Partnership Support; Mr Eric Musekene, Chief Director: EPWP: Monitoring and Evaluation and Mr Odwa Tiya, EPWP: Infrastructure. He presented a progress report on the EPWP plus addressed comments raised by members at a previous meeting. He provided tables of the following results:

Overall EPWP Annual Targets (5 years) per financial year:
- Illustrates an annual breakdown from 2014/15 to 2018/19 of the number of work opportunities and full time equivalent work that the programme hopes to attain.
 - Work opportunities increase slightly per annum.

Discussion on Performance of the EPWP
- This accounted for the 2014/15 financial year, and represents a cumulative data total. The number of work opportunities reported is 1,103,983, which translates to 106% of the original target.
- Performance within sectors is also indicated; all sectors have reached their target, with the exception of the Environment and Culture sectors (97%).
- The primary contributors in terms of over achievement are Infrastructure and the Non-State sectors.
- In terms of full time equivalent work, it underachieved with a total of 387,278 against a target of 450,952.

Overall Progress against 2014-15 Targets (1 April 2014 – 31 March 2015) for Work Opportunities:
- This showed the annual target versus the actual work opportunities created.

Overall Analysis across all sectors and spheres of government (April 2014 – March 2015):
- This indicates how many sites there are across the country. In total there are around 15,836 sites (7,035; infrastructure, 3,377; environment and culture, 36; Non-State NPOs, 4,927; Social, 171; Community Work).
- Importantly, the average duration of work opportunities is currently 87 days (Infrastructure; 69, Environment and Culture; 77, Non-State NPOs; 91, Social; 94, Community Work; 126), which fluctuates regularly.

Discussion on Performance of the Programme in All Spheres of Government:
- This Slide talks to performance within various spheres. All other sectors at national level were unable to reach their target.

National Government Departments Progress Against 2014-15 Annual Targets Work Opportunities and FTEs - The dark colours indicate the sectors which failed to reach 100%; not gross underperformance. For the DPW this is a matter for interrogation, particularly as they operate in the second year of Phase 3.
- The next Slide considers the national, as well as provincial/municipal data; representing a slice in the data in accordance with spheres.

Infrastructure, Environment and Culture and Social Sectors (Total):
- Indicative of individual performance.
- For example, Limpopo in terms of performance has plunged, however this problem is being addressed and DPW expects resurgence in the forthcoming months.

Work Opportunities as percentage of Designated groups by Sectors (1 April 2014 – 31 March 2015):
- This explains the performance level in terms of the designated groups, for example infrastructure - 50% women, 49% youth, 2% disabilities.
- In consideration of achievement, it has over achieved in terms of women; in terms of youth it is slightly under, however it must be noted that in Phase 2 the objective was to create 40% of work opportunities for youths, hence it has upped its game from the 40%, to 51% (work still needs to be done).

Municipalities Reporting per Province (1 April 2014 – 31 March 2015:
- Out of 278 municipalities, 270 have reported (these numbers continue to oscillate).
- When an issue of non-reporting comes up, the province is visited and the matter addressed directly. Notably, within municipalities, they are most affected by lack of administration.

Spatial Analysis: Sector Performance:
- The new reporting system is designed to look at more spatial data.

Spatial Distribution of Work Opportunities (1 April 2014 – 31 March 2015):
- Talks to the top ten performing municipalities.
- There is a big issue in terms of rural v urban. We have extensive engagement with cities network and are reminded that there are poor people within the cities, through migration. When we see the number of job opportunities created within the city, this may not necessarily be a bad thing due to the current migration patterns.

EPWP Integrated Grant Performance:
Expenditure as at end of March 2015 – integrated grant to provinces:
- This talks to the grant in terms of provinces – a total of R348 million was assigned.
- The grant is designed to be a lever, it is not supposed to be the only fund of money; work opportunities are still created from baseline budgets.
- How much has the DPW managed to disperse? Approximately 100%, for example in Limpopo the department has managed to disperse 96%.

Expenditure as at end of March 2015 – Integrated grant to Provinces:
(see document)

Expenditure as at end of March 2015 – Social Sector Incentive Grant:
- Indicates the allocation to provincial departments. The grants must be considered in terms of provinces and municipalities.
- R257 million was given to the social sector provincial departments to develop programmes such as early childhood development/malaria offices. Further initiatives have been explored such as sports coaching. Secondly, intensive work is done with performance levels, and a number of factors are considered. Overall what tends to affect provinces is the issue of reporting.

Beyond the Numbers:
- Often people will say, what is the real picture behind EDWP?
- “We are saying that there is an enterprise development programme, and even though the core focus and the objective is the creation of job opportunities we cannot close our eyes to the fact that this will bring out certain enterprise elements. We are also saying it is important to build relationships with other departments/organisations”.
- What do we expect to be delivered when we have an infrastructure sector for example? Typically, sidewalk construction, roads maintenance, stone water construction.
- We now ensure change in the management, to ensure verification, and reports are completed.
- As we continue to develop, the data will be better layered.

Enterprise Development:
- We have managed to support 322 small enterprises (175 of the 322 are cooperatives).
- As a department we develop certain capacity building initiatives. We conduct workshop on cooperatives, very often people view cooperatives in a negative light (for example, I need five people to form a primary cooperative – not understanding you need to draw people in on the basis of their strengths).
- Very often when money begins to come in, you will find that it is important for us to run these sessions so we begin to make people realise the importance of the structure of the organisation that they are involved in and what it requires.

Breakdown of SMME’s and Coops Supported:
- These are the latest figures that we have; slightly higher than normal because it deals with what we have now in terms of the quarter. We have 381 SMMEs currently on our system. This Slide represents the breakdown in terms of provinces, for example, Eastern Cape; 35 SMMEs, Free State; 2 SMMEs.
- We are not happy with Free State, because it does not make sense to us.
- The EPWP has interesting relationships with the NDPW, and the PRASA. The NDPW, for example, within the police and justice departments. Further, with PRASA to ensure that metro stations are cleaned and maintained.

EPWP Training:
- The EPWP has no budget for training.
- We must engage the Department of Higher Education for money (we have concluded an MOU with them through the National Skills Fund for funding benefits – this runs out on the 25 March 2016).
- Where will we receive the money for training, post this period? The Minister of Higher Education continues to consult widely in terms of the National Skills Development Strategy (NSDS).
- We have seen that in terms of the NSDS there is an increased emphasis on youth targeting.
- The allocated funding is the following: R200m for short courses, R110m for skills programmes, R52m for artisan development and learnerships, R7.1m for NECSA training.
- We have 3 primary SETA partnerships – agriSETA, CATHSSETA, MerSETA – not necessarily giving us money, but to ensure quality standards are being met in terms of learners being certificated.
- We have had particularly amazing engagement with MerSETA, which talks to the R52 million on the previous Slide (Artisan Development and Learnerships). We have conducted an service level agreement on 31 March 2015 and a further 221 artisans will be taken on, totalling 339 by end of current financial year.
- This gives the breakdown per numbers in terms of individuals who have been skilled in EPWP thus far.
- In terms of the short courses, 10733 persons were trained (some trained on more than one course, and that is why the multiskilling number is higher (22697).
- Turning to skills programmes, you will find that number will drop because these are of longer duration (Learnerships 12 months, Artisan Development Programme 3-4 years).

EPWP Phase 3 Reporting System:
- This simply states that we have one system as EPWP in terms of reporting (one reporting system that 287 municipalities report information directly into).
- Data reporting is important to us, so we have inbuilt validation (flagging will occur within the system).
- We have a partnership with the Department of Home Affairs and PERSAL – which are linked to our audits, to ensure certified identification.
- Parallel recording for fingerprint recognition, where possible, will allow for the link of participant data to the data sets of other government systems – linking data with UAF for example. The system will be set up to accommodate various biometric measurements.
- To date, the EPWP MandE Unit has conducted a number of training workshops with all the sectors and the implementing public bodies.

Progress on Institutionalizing the PEP – IMC:
- When we introduced Phase 3, we said we would introduce a public employment programme inter-ministerial committee; the first session will be on 8 July – coupled with visits in the Gauteng province.
- The PEP-IMC will be chaired by the deputy president Mr Cyril Ramaphosa comprising of ministers from the core departments.

Key Challenges:
- This structure is vital to unblock some of the challenges faced, and we have already identified key issues we would want to have addressed.
- Low technical capacity of public bodies to implement EPWP. As indicated earlier with the data, we expect 30% of our work opportunities from the municipal sphere – when you visit municipalities, they lack in terms of technical capacity (engineer etc.)
- Non-attainment of persons with disabilities and youth targets: the key issue that we need to provide is certainty in terms of pronouncement. As the EPWP we encourage people to participate (persons with disabilities) through road shows, it is also key that we bring out recruitment guidelines and renew these in terms of phase 3.
- Non attainment of FTEs targets – due to shorter duration of work opportunities sectors have put out the expected length of work opportunity, and sometimes the work opportunity as planned has not equalled the implementation in itself.
- Social Sector Programme such as the National School Nutrition (NSNP) not adhering to the minimum daily wage stipulated in the ministerial determination.

Measures put in place to address these challenges:
- Technical support is being provided to public bodies to help them implement their projects labour-intensively and to report effectively.
- Engagements are being held with organisations that represent persons with disabilities to improve their participation in EPWP
- Engagements are being held with different programmes to enable them to adhere to EPWP minimum wage.

Labour Marketing Dynamics Survey Results:
(Refer to Document)

Discussion
Dr Q Madlopha (ANC) recalled when the Fifth Parliament commenced, the Minister attended the first meeting of Public Works Portfolio Committee and he advocated the creation of quality jobs; EPWP would be the institution who led this; how do you create quality jobs?

In reference to page three (Overall EPWP Annual Targets (5 years) per financial year), Dr Madlopha queried the accuracy of the figures provided - the Department said that the same person can be employed in different projects, and each employment period would be considered as one work opportunity; for example if I work in infrastructure, and then within the social sector, it would be counted as two jobs, when in fact it is not. To come here and say you have exceeded your targets is incorrect; duplication is not assisting us when considering the unemployment rates; we must not escalate as if we have created a number of jobs, only to find this is incorrect.

Moreover, she asked if the data reported to Members was reliable in respect of work opportunities that have been created? She stressed her concerns over the issue of reporting; we are called central government, central means things start here, thus reporting of individual projects/programmes should become more centralised. How can you ensure the figures presented to Parliament are the real figures? Additionally, the department indicated – with regard to the incentive grant – that they give 40% as a starting point, and a further 30%, which must be labour intensive. Can you provide clarity on this?

She queried the identification of beneficiaries; are you identifying them through the municipalities that are implementing the EWFP? If yes, what are your working relations with the Municipal Infrastructure Support Agent (MISA)? DPW has indicated in the progress report that they have underperformed in this sector.

She stated that the Constitution indicates that provincial government must support municipalities; what is your intervention as a national department to try and assist poor performance levels/underperformance?

Dr Madlopha asked DPW, in terms of the data capturers within the EDWP, how many have you sent to municipalities who are low in capacity? Is the information reported reliable?

She remarked that we talk about not realising our targets for those identified with disabilities; social grants are not enough. There are a number of organisations for people of disabilities – how can you fail when you are working with them? She stressed that this remains a central issue, which the department needs to address.

Lastly, in reference to Slide 20 (Expenditure at end of March 2015 – Integrated Grant to Provinces), what do you mean when you say that funds for Limpopo were stopped due to non-compliance? What intervention did you employ to assist this province? The Constitution is clear that the national department must assist. In addition, DPW has noted that provincial departments did not have full expenditure due to delays in implementation of projects; what is the cause of delays? And again, what interventions were adopted to assist this problem?

Ms P Adams (ANC) criticised the DPW for the figures indicated in the summary of the number of work opportunities created in the 2014/15 financial year. She said that as much as it is a summary of the performance level, she hoped that DPW would have split this into quarterly figures. Further, she stated that one of the benchmarks of the ANC-led government is to create jobs. She asked the department for a baseline of where they are working; where are you in terms of creating jobs?
 
The DPW is the custodian of EPWP. For us to evaluate the way that EPWP is progressing, more clarity is required in terms of the departments you are working together with, for example, social programmes, nutritional programmes – who are you working with?

She indicated that a lot of the EPWP budget goes to municipalities. Are all 280 municipalities capacitated to do justice to EPWP? In addition, do they have the competence to report? Is the department ensuring that all sectors of EPWP projects are implemented in all of the municipalities?

Ms Adams asked the department how they set targets. Are these targets zoomed into each municipality? Who are the people working with the targets that you set? Are these targets realistic?

In reference to the final Slide (Labour Market Dynamic Survey Results), do you agree with these results? One point stated that a large portion of youth participated in 2011 (51.1%), however by 2014 this had reversed in favour adults. This is not necessarily a negative thing, however she emphasised the vulnerability of the youth in society. What is the department doing to popularise EPWP projects amongst the youth?

She noted the EPWP has coupled with AgriSETA, Culture, Arts, Tourism, Hospitality and Sport Sector Education and Training Authority (CathsSETA) and MERSETA; are these the only SETAs? In addition, the department has indicated that they continue to work with Volkswagen SA, Toyota SA and Mercedes Benz (automobile manufacturers); what other manufacturing sectors do you enter into? And what is the social contribution of those three manufacturers? Further, she said that part of the EPWP is to let our youth know that it is not derogatory to be an artisan – what are you doing to convince them?

Only one sector has exceeded the 100% boundary (Non-State: Comm work), which startled her. She said that the department is setting its targets too low so that it can reach over 102%.

Mr K Sithole (IFP) commended the department for their presentation. He noted that the Deputy Minister had indicated DPW had created 1.24 million jobs, however the report denotes otherwise. Slide 5 suggests that the same person can be employed on the same project and each employment period is considered as one work opportunity.

Secondly, he inquired about the capacity of DPW for the implementation of the EPWP, especially in provinces and municipalities. Do they have auditing skills? DPW states they exceeded their targets by 1.03%; what was the annual target of the EPWP?

He echoed Dr Madlopha about the reporting system. DPW has given all the money to provinces, however on Slide 20 – on the point of delays – what informed you to give money to provinces when there are these kinds of delays? Do you have a system or mechanism to assist provinces with lower expenditure than others, such as Mpumalanga and Free State?

Mr S Masango (DA) agreed with Mr Sithole – DPW have spent R1.1 million, but according to the Deputy Minister they have spent R1.24 million; the need for clarity is fundamental.

He referred to the number of projects/sites in Slide 7 (Overall Analysis across all sectors and spheres of government) and said this calculation appears to be incorrect. The presenter spoke of 1,000 beneficiaries per site; what informed this?

Mr Masango indicated that on Slide 11, when DPW compares women, youths and those with disabilities; are you working with a 100% total? He felt the presentation fails to inform the Members correctly.

He referred to Slide 21 (Expenditure at end of March 2015 – Integrated Grant to Municipalities). Notably, why have Eastern Cape been given 100%, but only spent 93%? What does this mean? Why do we transfer money if people have not spent? What happens with this money?

Further, on the breakdown of SSMEs and cooperatives supported (Slide 30); why have most provinces failed to report on women and youth?

Finally, according to the presenter, the DPW has no funds for training. We must understand what exactly South Africa needs in order to train. For example, in public works training – what capacity do they have when it comes to agriculture?

Ms E Masehela (ANC) commended DPW for the presentation. She referred to Slide 9 and stated that those indicated in red did not achieve the 100% target, those in green did. If we consider those figures closely, the lowest was 62%; those figures need to increase.

She turned to Slide 7 (Overall Analysis across all sectors and spheres of government), and stated that the Total column can be misleading at times; she suggested that this is more an average, than a total. DPW should correct this to avoid misinforming.

Ms Masehela agreed with Mr Masango about Slide 11 that one should be working out of 100%. How has DPW presented this here in terms of totals?

She referred to Slide 19 (Expenditure as at end of March 2015 – Integrated grant to provinces) and asked what is the situation currently in Limpopo? Are they getting out of this bracket?

Ms Masehela queried DPW on the Teacher Assistant Programme (Slide 28), and asked how these people are being employed under EPWP? Further, she asked for clarity on the programme itself.

She expressed concern about the accuracy of the figures in Slide 30 (Breakdown of SMMEs and Coops Supported). If you consider Limpopo, DPW indicates that the total number of participants is 847, however there are no figures in relation to women and youths. Is this accurate?

She added to the comments on Slide 36 (Key Challenges), by saying that in most cases disabled people are not necessarily elderly people, some are very young. She stated that the money from the pension fund is not adequate. However, if they are progressing within these programmes, this will increase their earnings so they can support their families and children.

She asked for clarity on the daily wage for these programmes, compared to others, for example the School Nutrition Programme.

On a final note, Ms Masehela asked for information as to the possibility of progressing from a short-term position, to a permanent post? What percentage of individuals has experienced this?

Ms D Mathebe (ANC) stated that on Slide 20 it said 100% of the social grant is funded to all provinces, whereas Limpopo, due to lack of compliance, failed to receive that money; what mechanism can you apply to ensure compliance?

Dr Madlopha commented on the four sectors of EPWP performance and percentages. Where did DPW get the money to perform 205%, which is more than double the budget; both over and under expenditure is a crime; she requested clarity on the matter.

Ms Adams asked about the SSMEs (Slide 30), if there is a working relationship. There is the new Department of Small Business Development – is there a working relationship in place? Is it a matter of duplicating work, because there are funds allocated to this new department and you are busy with SSMEs – should not part of that money go to that department?

Mr B Martins (ANC) thanked the members for their questions. Obviously after DPW’s exhaustive presentation you can expect members to be thorough in their interrogation of the presentation. He acknowledged that it was adequately clear that in future, one must tidy up the presentations.

Response
Mr Stanley Henderson thanked the Members for their comments and said the criticism is well taken. Firstly, what should public works programmes be doing in the commission of quality jobs? He explained that it is important that DPW raise this issue, and it is upfront on that matter.

With regard to the question: can one person work in more than one EPWP project? The answer is yes. He contextualised this from a departmental perspective. In summation, of the more than one million work opportunities reported for 2014/15, around 850,000 could be head counted, which means that for the others they are duplicated figures. We are not hiding the true figures, this uncertainty stems from the way the programme is structured, and DPW must capture the different projects and the participants in these projects.

Ms Abrahams considered the questions regarding training and multi-skilling, as well as a number of other comments raised. Firstly, in response to the comment by Ms Adams on the quarterly breakdown: in Quarter 1 of 2014/15, we created 424,387 work opportunities; 630,718 in Quarter 2; 895,513 in Quarter 3, and 1,103,983 in Quarter 4.

Additionally, the DPW has agreements with mayors of municipalities (out of 287 municipalities, we have 191 signed agreements, in which they agree to idea to the EDWP). What they sign for is that EDWP will be included in the work plans of the senior management; this is an issue we can monitor. The protocol for example, indicates the applications of the municipalities to ensure that they meet their targets. DPW puts the targets within that agreement, and a member of the mayoral committee is appointed to lead EDWP within the municipality to ensure effective coordination, and municipal departments incorporate EDWP targets into their programme plans, in line with the infrastructure plan. Subsequently, EDWP policies are endorsed by the council of the municipality – the reason being this sends a very clear signal that we are serious about EDWP.

Furthermore, the policy clearly highlights the capacity requirements; stating that EDWP will be capacitated by a certain number of people. The policy will talk to the situation, for example, the unemployment records, ensuring compliance across all sectors. In addition, the policy highlights the organogram, ensuring that targets are achieved. We then have a municipal summit every second year, so as to account for what they are doing in terms of compliance.

Ms Abrahams explained that the DPW as a national department has developed a scorecard listing all clauses, and whether these are being adhered to, thus measuring compliance within the policies. For this year, we are asking municipalities to renew their policies and align themselves to the Phase 3 principles (recruitment/minimum labour standards - EDWP principles).

She then addressed the SETA partnership comments from members. The only SETAs we are partnering with are those listed. We intend to work with further SETAs on matters of certification; they work with the companies in terms of how they will get levies from companies, which are utilized to augment the money for the Artisan Development Programme. The programme itself will talk to R21 million, and the EDWP will contribute R9 million through the National Skills Fund money. She added that with a second intake, there is much more of a partnership in terms of engagement.

She stated that in terms of the incentive agreement component, DPW explicitly state the requirements in terms of work opportunities from the overall budget; we may not necessarily explain to public bodies how we get to that target. We give them specific targets, and state how much the incentive grant is.

She responded to Ms Madlopha’s question: how do you identify beneficiaries to be trained? She stated, no we do not. We require our sectors to identify skills that are priority skills, and engage with SETAs. We then agree collectively on what skills are priority skills, and will be trained as part of the EDWP on an annual basis. We then have an approval sitting, and make announcements in forums. Public bodies then fill out an application form and DPW adjudicates this on the basis of meeting the requirements for the top priority courses, and the requirements of the reported project.

She then turned to the EDWP funds. The total money received from the DHET totals R369 million – the courses average about R16,000/17,000 per course. This means that with that particular money we are only able to train around 22,000 beneficiaries. We continue to see an increase towards artisan development.

Mr Henderson added that DPW does not step outside of its mandate. It just works in conjunction with other departments to fulfil it mandates in terms of different areas. The same applies for small business development.

Ms Abrahams stated that in terms of capacity, DPW has capacity in all provinces. DPW has its regions and staff within the regional offices, represent the various sectors. This includes a training specialist and an enterprise development specialist. DPW works together with the provincial departments; the capacity within these departments varies. For example, Western Cape has a district manager in each district. DPW’s role is to share with them the various organograms of the provincial departments, so that they can motivate within their own budget votes for sufficient capacity. If required we will visit heads of departments (HODs) to assist. Previously, Northern Cape has asked for technical assistance. However, as noted before, capacity varies. Furthermore, DPW can monitor municipalities that fail to report on a monthly basis, and in accordance with those who fail to report in terms of the sectors.

In response to the comments made on the daily wage, Ms Abrahams stated that we started with a minimum of R60 in 2010, and have progressively aligned this in terms of inflation. At present, the minimum daily wage is R75.10. The wage adjustments are made on 1 November by the Department of Labour.

In terms of the projects data, the data is incorrect in Slide 7. The number of projects/sites within the Non-State NPO sector should be corrected to 326, and not 36.

Finally, the issue of enterprise development data remains a huge problem for DPW. We now work to ensure the data and the model itself included in the new system is related, so as to ensure that we do not have these problems from now on.

Mr Musekene responded to the question on how reliable is the DPW data by asking: what measures are required to ensure reliability? DPW have been operating from different systems; quarterly validations would take place. The numbers we present today are underreported. For this reason, we have proposed a new single reporting system, with built in validation rules, and it will enhance its partnership with the Department of Home Affairs. The system enables the DPW to identify those beneficiaries who are participating in programmes, and those who are not through this linkage.

The new system further enables the DPW to zoom over municipalities, for example in Limpopo, you would be able to see the project, and behind that project it will have the names of all those participating in the project (with validated ID numbers).

Mr Odwa Tiya explained that the DPW has orientation workshops for municipalities. For example on the 24 and 25 of June, we will be conducting workshops for Nelson Mandela Bay.

In 2011/12 the DPW trained 1,200 municipality officials on labour intensive methods through LGSETA funding. Attempts to realise these figures are currently being made.

In response to the comments made on technical support, when the DPW visit municipalities they meet with the technical representatives who deliver reports. The municipalities would give the DPW a project and they would identify those that are labour intensive in nature, and would set the targets for that specific project.

In terms of the targets the DPW have set for the municipalities, we set each head of department a target that talks to the overall target set for that municipality in order to provide linkage with the overall target. The head will manage the appointment and creation of jobs within that municipality.

The DPW provides extensive support to municipalities. He stated that he has a lot of meetings lined up where he is due to meet with municipal managers.

In terms of the incentive, the DPW does not specify for municipalities where they allocate their budget; they decide as a council where they spend the allocation we have for the programme. The DPW advises them on programmes that they could use the money for, and beyond that, the municipalities establish their own programme where they utilise the money given. In respect of the allocation not spent, the Division of Revenue Act (DORA) states that they can apply for a rollover so that the money is transferred to the forthcoming financial year. Unfortunately, there are delays in implementation.

Mr Martins stated that it is very clear that we have not exhausted everything that could be said; this is an ongoing process. From the side of the Portfolio Committee, we will record what has been said, and request information and sessions of this nature if and when necessary. He thanked everyone for their contribution as this sheds more light on the issue and enables us to take matters forward.

The meeting was concluded.